Reviewer Comments - EERE

2011 Algae Platform Review – Reviewer Comments
Reviewer Comments are direct transcripts of commentary and material provided by the Platform’s
Review Panel. They have not been edited or altered by the Biomass Program.
and, together, form a basis for comparison for production potential through cultivation. Activities in
China would not provide a strong basis for economic comparison for the reasons stated by the reviewer.
4.3. A study by Graham et al.( PNAS 104: 16576–16580 [2007]) demonstrated the existence of
previously unknown populations of deep water tropical kelp resulting from model predictions based on
ecophysiological modeling and geospatial analysis of physico-chemico data from ocean environments.
This is not unlike the approach we are taking. The two demonstration areas are being used to test model
parameters. Once validated for prediction of population distribution in the demonstration areas, the plan is
to apply the model to broader aspects of the U.S. EEZ. Our success in developing and applying such
spatial models is listed as a challenge in our presentation. However, members of our team have
successfully developed parallel models for land-based resource assessment of microalgae applicable to
the United States (Wigmosta et al.2011. National Microalgae Biofuel Production Potential and Resource
Demand. Water Resources Research. doi: 10.1029/2010WR009966). We feel that this experience will
facilitate research on the current project on macroalgae.
4.4. NC 4.5. NC 4.6 The macroalgae growth model will provide information on growth rates and total
biomass. Understanding how much of the resource can exist is needed for its valuation. Perhaps the
reviewer is noting that other factors are needed as well to assess a realistic long-term production potential.
We agree that model validation is important. This study is a first step, and the first of its kind to provide
quantitative macroalgae production potential as a biofuels feedstock.
5. Technology Transfer and Collaborations
Please comment on the degree to which the project adequately interfaces and coordinates with other
institutions and projects to provide additional benefits to the Biomass Program, such as publications,
awards, or others.
Reviewer Comments
Reviewer: 1
I did not sense the coordination with the OBP Algae program or with other investigators.
Reviewer: 2
Tech transfer not evident yet in presentation.
Reviewer: 3
Publish findings and disseminate new knowledge to end-users. Provide new assessment tool to end-users.
Submit results to the Biomass Knowledge Discovery Framework.
Reviewer: 4
See Overall Impressions text.
Reviewer: 5
No technology transfer reported.
Reviewer: 6
See section on Overall Impressions
Reviewer: 7
Information sharing appears premature. the survey needs validation and refinement before it is useful.
Page 89 of 223